Is this 4WD false advertisement from ford?? Check out the picture..

[Ramseyi]

When I stop my BS in the middle of my steep loose gravel climb I can briskly restart just like I was on level pavement with absolutely no loss of traction on any of the four wheels.
I did this once with ice under one front tire on this steep section up to my house.
If it slipped I didn’t feel it. The other three took over.
I did this again with both right side tires on ice.
It slipped, on the ice, I steered a bit left and the left side dutifully pulled me up the 14% grade until I was off the ice patch.
Several times on my dry loose steep gravel I’ve watched the AWD RAV 4 loose it if it stops while going up slow and steady
And have to back down and need a running start to try again.
Only my Bronco Sport BASE and the true 4x4 pick up trucks and a Nissan Path Finder can stop and easily restart while on this climb when things are dry and loose.
We have a Subaru, two Rav 4’s, Two AWD Ford Escapes !
And a few more so called AWD’s. Not a single one can do this.

Nice hearing your story about your bronco awd experienced.

Sponsored

 

[sajohnson]

When I stop my BS in the middle of my steep loose gravel climb I can briskly restart just like I was on level pavement with absolutely no loss of traction on any of the four wheels.
I did this once with ice under one front tire on this steep section up to my house.
If it slipped I didn’t feel it. The other three took over.
I did this again with both right side tires on ice.
It slipped, on the ice, I steered a bit left and the left side dutifully pulled me up the 14% grade until I was off the ice patch.
Several times on my dry loose steep gravel I’ve watched the AWD RAV 4 loose it if it stops while going up slow and steady
And have to back down and need a running start to try again.
Only my Bronco Sport BASE and the true 4x4 pick up trucks and a Nissan Path Finder can stop and easily restart while on this climb when things are dry and loose.
We have a Subaru, two Rav 4’s, Two AWD Ford Escapes !
And a few more so called AWD’s. Not a single one can do this.

I'm not surprised. "AWD" is one of the biggest scams going in the automotive industry.

There is such a wide range of systems, with greatly varying capabilities -- and no industry standard definition.

It's as if "brakes" could mean anything from a 60 year old system with a single reservoir master cylinder and drum brakes on all four corners, to the ceramic disc brakes on some high-end sports cars -- and the mfr would not be required to specify exactly which system their vehicles have. It would be up to the buyer to do the research.

"Oh, you wanted brakes that don't fade quickly and actually work when you need them to? They are only available on the XLR model..."

 

[sajohnson]

?? %

Too many variations of
awd/4x4.

Even just considering in the Bronco sport lineup the difference in base, big bend and Outer Banks
versus Badlands and first edition.

they are different yet still identified on paper with the same lettering/description.

Perhaps systems that are only activated by the vehicle sensors should be
iawd
Intelligent all-wheel drive.

Subaru Forester Outback are consistently awd always

I like my Subaru WRX. I've had it for 21 years. It has been a very good car -- fun to drive and reliable (several problems, but I've never been stranded).

Like all their other models, Subaru claims the 5MT WRX is 'AWD all the time'. Technically, yes, all of the wheels have power going to them all the time -- it is not a system like the BS has that is normally FWD and can manually or automatically send power to the rear.

The problem with the WRX is that it uses very weak VCUs (viscous coupling units) to transfer torque. They are so weak that it essentially has 3 open diffs! That means the torque is free to follow the path of least resistance. One tire on ice and 3 on dry pavement? On a level road the VCUs *might* transfer enough torque to move the car forward, but on an incline -- forget it (ask me how I know). As I said above, I confirmed that it was not just my car by taking it to our local Ford/Subaru dealer (where I bought it, and where we ordered the Badlands). They tested it, and a brand new later model WRX off their lot. Result? Both have sad "AWD" systems that are really one-wheel drive in any situation where one tire has very little traction.

Again, I like the WRX, but like other mfrs, Subaru is not above 'misleading' potential buyers and owners about their AWD systems. Subaru has made several systems over the years, and some are very good, but few, if any, are true AWD.

I'm not singling out any particular brand -- they're all guilty to some extent -- but there should be an easy to understand diagram/graphic that clearly displays what the all-wheel drive system on each vehicle consists of.

 

[MaxVelocity]

I'm not surprised. "AWD" is one of the biggest scams going in the automotive industry.

There is such a wide range of systems, with greatly varying capabilities -- and no industry standard definition.

Correct, the traditional "standard" has been set by enthusiasts who insist that a true 4x4 have a selectable transfer case or center diff lock, neither of which an average consumer would be privy to. Some consumers may also not be aware that the aforementioned "true" 4x4 pickup can be quickly relegated to 4x2 status (1 wheel front & 1 wheel rear) when the going gets rough, if not equipped with front and rear differential locks (which few are).

So what level(s) of capability would an industry standard be based on? IMO the intelligent AWD systems are getting very close and in some ways better than some traditional 4x4 systems, but I'm not sure how to define that.

 

[Mark S.]

The problem with the WRX is that it uses very weak VCUs (viscous coupling units) to transfer torque. They are so weak that it essentially has 3 open diffs! That means the torque is free to follow the path of least resistance. One tire on ice and 3 on dry pavement? On a level road the VCUs *might* transfer enough torque to move the car forward, but on an incline -- forget it (ask me how I know).

This is a feature, not a bug. You can't have all four wheels fully locked together when on dry pavement. When cornering, the wheels on the inside of the turn are covering a smaller diameter circle, so they MUST rotate slower than the wheels on the outside. Otherwise you will cause excessive wear on the tires and driveline components as the inside wheels are forces to turn slower by friction between the tires and the pavement. It's not a problem on soft or slippery surfaces, since there is less friction between the tire and the surface, and that's why the Bronco Sport owner's manual cautions against using drive modes that lock wheels together on dry pavement.

Subaru is not misleading anyone. It uses a few different varieties of AWD system, depending on Subaru's estimation of the owner's primary needs. The systems used in cars meant for off-roading or for driving in snow/slippery conditions are significantly different from the one used in the WRX, which is meant mainly for on-road performance. You can learn more about Subaru's different AWD systems in this video:

 

[Mark S.]

IMO the intelligent AWD systems are getting very close and in some ways better than some traditional 4x4 systems, but I'm not sure how to define that.

It would all come down to definitions, especially the word "better." Do you mean easier to use? Less prone to failure due to user error? Less prone to break? Easier to maintain? Or more capable in driving situations requiring the most traction?

If you want to run in the roughest backcountry terrain with the people using massive, specialty tires on vehicles lifted to accommodate them, and modified to protect vulnerable parts from damage (rocks, water, etc.) then you will almost certainly need, at minimum, a vehicle equipped with a low-range gear to multiply engine torque, a transfer case to lock the front and rear axles together, and front/rear locking differentials. You'll also need to know when--and at least as importantly, when NOT--to engage those various components. The limitations a vehicle like this places on road manners makes them almost impossible to use as a daily driver for all but the most hardcore.

Winder Towing in Hurricane, UT specializes in backcountry recovery of stuck vehicles. His YouTube channel is Matt's Off-Road Recovery, and he records many of the rescues. They build and modify the vehicles they use during rescues to make them as capable off-road as possible. As often as not, you'll see them towing their off-road recovery vehicles on a trailer to the trail, because driving them on the road sucks.

Incidentally, you can learn a lot about off-road driving by watching the channel. Matt has been doing this stuff for a long, long time, and he's probably forgotten more about off-road driving than I'll ever know.

 

[AmazingSieve]

I like my Subaru WRX. I've had it for 21 years. It has been a very good car -- fun to drive and reliable (several problems, but I've never been stranded).

Like all their other models, Subaru claims the 5MT WRX is 'AWD all the time'. Technically, yes, all of the wheels have power going to them all the time -- it is not a system like the BS has that is normally FWD and can manually or automatically send power to the rear.

The problem with the WRX is that it uses very weak VCUs (viscous coupling units) to transfer torque. They are so weak that it essentially has 3 open diffs! That means the torque is free to follow the path of least resistance. One tire on ice and 3 on dry pavement? On a level road the VCUs *might* transfer enough torque to move the car forward, but on an incline -- forget it (ask me how I know). As I said above, I confirmed that it was not just my car by taking it to our local Ford/Subaru dealer (where I bought it, and where we ordered the Badlands). They tested it, and a brand new later model WRX off their lot. Result? Both have sad "AWD" systems that are really one-wheel drive in any situation where one tire has very little traction.

Again, I like the WRX, but like other mfrs, Subaru is not above 'misleading' potential buyers and owners about their AWD systems. Subaru has made several systems over the years, and some are very good, but few, if any, are true AWD.

I'm not singling out any particular brand -- they're all guilty to some extent -- but there should be an easy to understand diagram/graphic that clearly displays what the all-wheel drive system on each vehicle consists of.

Subaru really missed the boat when they bet they farm on CVT. Can’t stand those systems.

 

[MaxVelocity]

It would all come down to definitions, especially the word "better." Do you mean easier to use? Less prone to failure due to user error? Less prone to break? Easier to maintain? Or more capable in driving situations requiring the most traction?

If you want to run in the roughest backcountry terrain with the people using massive, specialty tires on vehicles lifted to accommodate them, and modified to protect vulnerable parts from damage (rocks, water, etc.) then you will almost certainly need, at minimum, a vehicle equipped with a low-range gear to multiply engine torque, a transfer case to lock the front and rear axles together, and front/rear locking differentials. You'll also need to know when--and at least as importantly, when NOT--to engage those various components. The limitations a vehicle like this places on road manners makes them almost impossible to use as a daily driver for all but the most hardcore.

Winder Towing in Hurricane, UT specializes in backcountry recovery of stuck vehicles. His YouTube channel is Matt's Off-Road Recovery, and he records many of the rescues. They build and modify the vehicles they use during rescues to make them as capable off-road as possible. As often as not, you'll see them towing their off-road recovery vehicles on a trailer to the trail, because driving them on the road sucks.

Incidentally, you can learn a lot about off-road driving by watching the channel. Matt has been doing this stuff for a long, long time, and he's probably forgotten more about off-road driving than I'll ever know.

For sure, I have watched all of Matt's videos to date. I can vouch for the fact that my 1970 Bronco is fully locked and otherwise built for trail use, so I only take it on pavement for short distances.

I believe most (if not all) factory vehicles equipped with electronic lockers will disengage above a certain MPH (or engage in low-range only) to keep folks from misusing them.

 

[sajohnson]

Correct, the traditional "standard" has been set by enthusiasts who insist that a true 4x4 have a selectable transfer case or center diff lock, neither of which an average consumer would be privy to. Some consumers may also not be aware that the aforementioned "true" 4x4 pickup can be quickly relegated to 4x2 status (1 wheel front & 1 wheel rear) when the going gets rough, if not equipped with front and rear differential locks (which few are).

So what level(s) of capability would an industry standard be based on? IMO the intelligent AWD systems are getting very close and in some ways better than some traditional 4x4 systems, but I'm not sure how to define that.

To clarify -- I'm NOT proposing one industry standard drive system. Mfrs are, and should be, free to create anything they want. I'm simply suggesting that there be a standard *description* of the drivetrain -- FWD/RWD/AWD/4WD -- and within those categories a basic description:

* Any locking diffs? If so, how do they lock?
* Is the traction control system considered part of the system?
* Are VCUs used?
* Clutches?
* Is the system full-time or part-time?
* Etc.

Just basic information for prospective buyers and owners -- so they know what they are getting for their money.

 

[Mark S.]

I believe most (if not all) factory vehicles equipped with electronic lockers will disengage above a certain MPH (or engage in low-range only) to keep folks from misusing them.

That seems wise! The BS owner's manual cautions against using certain drive modes on dry pavement, but I don't know if they automatically switch off.

 

[sajohnson]

This is a feature, not a bug. You can't have all four wheels fully locked together when on dry pavement. When cornering, the wheels on the inside of the turn are covering a smaller diameter circle, so they MUST rotate slower than the wheels on the outside. Otherwise you will cause excessive wear on the tires and driveline components as the inside wheels are forces to turn slower by friction between the tires and the pavement. It's not a problem on soft or slippery surfaces, since there is less friction between the tire and the surface, and that's why the Bronco Sport owner's manual cautions against using drive modes that lock wheels together on dry pavement.

Subaru is not misleading anyone. It uses a few different varieties of AWD system, depending on Subaru's estimation of the owner's primary needs. The systems used in cars meant for off-roading or for driving in snow/slippery conditions are significantly different from the one used in the WRX, which is meant mainly for on-road performance. You can learn more about Subaru's different AWD systems in this video:

As a 'car guy' for the last 45 years, I am aware of and agree with what you said. Of course you can't have all four wheels fully locked together when on dry pavement.

As for the WRX, Subaru absolutely *does* use different systems in it, as I mentioned in my post above. The 5MT that I have uses a completely lame VCU-based system that is essentially 3 open diffs. The auto trans model has a very sophisticated system that (IIRC) is a true all-wheel drive system. They are completely, totally different -- even though both cars are intended for the same exact use.

If anything, most people would think the manual trans car would have the more performance-oriented AWD system.

All mfrs mislead their customers about their AWD systems. At a minimum, it is misleading by *omission*. They simply say, "The new AWD T Rex" (or whatever) and show it being driven too fast on a snowy road. Yes, technically, the vehicle is capable of sending power to all 4 heels under some conditions, but the systems vary wildly -- even when comparing similar vehicles -- i.e., not a Hummer to a CR-V.

It's as if mfrs could get away with saying their car has an ICE and a transmission -- with no further info. No # of cylinders; no torque; hp; redline; # of gears, etc.

Most people on forums like this are aware of what you and I posted. My concern is for average car buyers who do not have a clue, and should not have to do a bunch of deep dive research before purchasing a vehicle.

 

[MaxVelocity]

Most people on forums like this are aware of what you and I posted. My concern is for average car buyers who do not have a clue, and should not have to do a bunch of deep dive research before purchasing a vehicle.

I completely understand what you are saying, but I really don't think most consumers care. In fact too much information would probably cause consumer's (and their salesman's) head to explode trying to understand and explain what all that information means. So we (the enthusiasts) are relegated to internet research. I still don't know everything I want to know about the Bronco Sport system's inner workings, but hopefully someday I'll get around to finding all the detailed information I want.

For example, I live in one of the most popular areas known to Subaru. From my experience, the top 5 reasons people buy them are:

1) They want All WD as opposed to either Rear WD or Front WD.
2) It's a Subaru
3) They like the appearance, especially silver
4) Decent fuel economy
5) Its a Subaru

They are practically an appliance around here, and like a washing machine, most people don't care about the inner workings, and it wouldn't surprise me if most couldn't tell you what engine size or how many cylinders it has.

Come to think of it, Ford may have included too much information in the intelligent display, which prompted the OP's question and now has resulted in 3 pages of discussion so far.

 

[Mark S.]

The 5MT that I have uses a completely lame VCU-based system that is essentially 3 open diffs. The auto trans model has a very sophisticated system that (IIRC) is a true all-wheel drive system. They are completely, totally different -- even though both cars are intended for the same exact use.

I don't get where you're coming from here. Yes, the torque transfer system used in the WRX is a viscous coupling, but it operates like a limited-slip differential, not an open differential. And yes, the front and rear axles use open diffs, but Subaru's AWD system prevents wheel slip by applying brakes on the spinning wheel. Doesn't the WRX work the same way? If so, how is it functionally different from any of Subaru's other AWD systems? I'll admit I don't spend a lot of time trolling around on Subaru forums, but a quick Google search didn't yield any widespread complaints about the way the WRX torque transfer system performs. Assuming it functions the way Subaru's other systems do, you should not get stuck if only a single wheel is on ice, you should not even get stuck if three wheels are on ice.

I also don't get your suggestion that Subaru doesn't tailor its cars to different uses. The WRX has less than five inches of ground clearance as opposed to the Outback which is close to nine. Subaru clearly intended one for off road, trail use while the other is more focused for the sport driver (road course, rally, etc.).

I get the frustration with marketing terms and deceptive advertising, but I can't say I agree Subaru is guilty here. It uses a limited-slip system to divide torque between the axles such that if the wheels on one lose traction torque automatically transfers to the other. And if one wheel on an axle loses traction the system applies brakes to prevent spin and transfer power to the other wheel. To me that sounds like AWD.

The only time I've seen Subaru's system to behave badly is on steep, uneven terrain where one or more wheels comes off the ground. I believe the system aggressively applies the brakes preventing enough power getting to the wheels on the ground. It's in these situations where a locking rear differential can save your bacon.

 

[sajohnson]

I don't get where you're coming from here. Yes, the torque transfer system used in the WRX is a viscous coupling, but it operates like a limited-slip differential, not an open differential. And yes, the front and rear axles use open diffs, but Subaru's AWD system prevents wheel slip by applying brakes on the spinning wheel. Doesn't the WRX work the same way? If so, how is it functionally different from any of Subaru's other AWD systems? I'll admit I don't spend a lot of time trolling around on Subaru forums, but a quick Google search didn't yield any widespread complaints about the way the WRX torque transfer system performs. Assuming it functions the way Subaru's other systems do, you should not get stuck if only a single wheel is on ice, you should not even get stuck if three wheels are on ice.

I also don't get your suggestion that Subaru doesn't tailor its cars to different uses. The WRX has less than five inches of ground clearance as opposed to the Outback which is close to nine. Subaru clearly intended one for off road, trail use while the other is more focused for the sport driver (road course, rally, etc.).

I get the frustration with marketing terms and deceptive advertising, but I can't say I agree Subaru is guilty here. It uses a limited-slip system to divide torque between the axles such that if the wheels on one lose traction torque automatically transfers to the other. And if one wheel on an axle loses traction the system applies brakes to prevent spin and transfer power to the other wheel. To me that sounds like AWD.

The only time I've seen Subaru's system to behave badly is on steep, uneven terrain where one or more wheels comes off the ground. I believe the system aggressively applies the brakes preventing enough power getting to the wheels on the ground. It's in these situations where a locking rear differential can save your bacon.

Quote: "Yes, the torque transfer system used in the WRX is a viscous coupling, but it operates like a limited-slip differential, not an open differential."

Speaking about my 2002 5MT WRX, and the 2004 5MT WRX -- both tested by Subaru techs at the local Ford/Subaru dealer, neither works that way. Subaru *claims* that, but they do not. The Ford techs (same shop) were cracking up because both WRX's had such weak AWD systems. I wish I had video of my tests and theirs. Maybe the newer 5MT WRX models are different -- but the VCU system on the early ones is pathetic. The VCUs are so weak as to be non-existent. The car is truly ONE (1) wheel drive.

Quote: "...Subaru's AWD system prevents wheel slip by applying brakes on the spinning wheel. Doesn't the WRX work the same way?"

No, not the early models anyway. And while systems like that are far better than nothing, they are less than ideal. As I mentioned, Mercedes uses/used all open diffs in their SUVs and traction control (TC) for limiting wheel spin. If relied on heavily the brakes will overheat and the system will shut down -- leaving a one (1) wheel drive system.

Quote: "...a quick Google search didn't yield any widespread complaints about the way the WRX torque transfer system performs. Assuming it functions the way Subaru's other systems do, you should not get stuck if only a single wheel is on ice, you should not even get stuck if three wheels are on ice."

I'd guess that's because the vast majority of people do not drive off-road, and even if they live in the snow belt, the roads are usually cleared pretty quickly. They'd be fine with FWD. In other words, the average driver does not drive in conditions that really test an AWD system.

My WRX, tested and confirmed to be functioning normally by Subaru, will absolutely get stuck with one tire on ice -- as will MANY so-called "AWD" vehicles. See my story (above) about the 5AT RAV4 my wife and I test drove -- stuck in the grass at the dealer with ONE tire spinning. Totally lame. The reason I began looking into and testing the AWD in my WRX is because it got stuck in our lane, on a modest incline, with one rear tire on ice (the other 3 on dry blacktop). That one tire was spinning (forward) and the car was rolling backwards down the hill. I was hoping something had failed, but the brand new 2004 (or 2005?) model at the dealer functioned exactly the same. It's simply a weak system.

The AWD system in my WRX is better described as, "From the wheels that grip to the (one) wheel that slips." So it's fair to say that -- in the case of the early model 5MT WRX anyway -- SOA's advertising was false.

Quote: "I also don't get your suggestion that Subaru doesn't tailor its cars to different uses. The WRX has less than five inches of ground clearance as opposed to the Outback which is close to nine. Subaru clearly intended one for off road, trail use while the other is more focused for the sport driver (road course, rally, etc.)."

I agree -- but I'm not comparing the WRX to the Outback. I'm comparing the 5MT WRX to the 5AT WRX. Same exact car. Same exact expected use. One has one of the lamest AWD systems ever designed, the other has one of the best -- which, IIRC, could lock all 3 diffs.

My point is not to dis Subaru (or Toyota) -- that's just what we own, so that's what I have experience with.

All I'm saying is that there are dozens, if not hundreds of "AWD" systems -- from barely functional to world-class. It would be nice to have a basic graphic showing (say) how many tires must lose traction before the vehicle is stuck. Mfrs could offer more info for those who are interested, but at least buyers could tell at a glance if they are getting a ONE wheel drive system like in that 5AT RAV4 I mentioned, or a decent AWD system like the BS has.

 

[sajohnson]

I completely understand what you are saying, but I really don't think most consumers care. In fact too much information would probably cause consumer's (and their salesman's) head to explode trying to understand and explain what all that information means. So we (the enthusiasts) are relegated to internet research. I still don't know everything I want to know about the Bronco Sport system's inner workings, but hopefully someday I'll get around to finding all the detailed information I want.

For example, I live in one of the most popular areas known to Subaru. From my experience, the top 5 reasons people buy them are:

1) They want All WD as opposed to either Rear WD or Front WD.
2) It's a Subaru
3) They like the appearance, especially silver
4) Decent fuel economy
5) Its a Subaru

They are practically an appliance around here, and like a washing machine, most people don't care about the inner workings, and it wouldn't surprise me if most couldn't tell you what engine size or how many cylinders it has.

Come to think of it, Ford may have included too much information in the intelligent display, which prompted the OP's question and now has resulted in 3 pages of discussion so far.

There's no need to bury people with too much info. Just a basic graphic is all that's necessary.

There are a bunch of illustrations available, I just haven't found one that seems ideal.

The idea would not be to get into the weeds, just show (for example) how many tires must lose traction before the vehicle is stuck. Basic stuff.

No doubt there would be people who don't care, but that's no reason to limit information. A lot of people don't care about all sorts of specs and features, but they are still listed.

Sponsored